<quoted text>What do you call a scientist who blatantly puts out a press release stating proof of increased warming over the past 100 years that is unprecedented and shows a huge hockey stick graph to "prove" it and then with no fanfare backtracks and states that his paper shows that "the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust and cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes."Maybe con artist?

No, I'd call someone who lies about science and the actions of scientists a "con artist," Kristy.

<quoted text>No, I'd call someone who lies about science and the actions of scientists a "con artist," Kristy.You, IOW...

What did I lie about? Marcott produced a hockey stick graph, sent out a press release and then retracted the hockey stick without any fanfare. That was at the least deceptive.

What do you call a person who states that I lie about science and the actions of scientists, but has no problem with a scientist such as Michael Mann lying about the actions of fellow scientists? A hypocrite.

<quoted text>What did I lie about? Marcott produced a hockey stick graph, sent out a press release and then retracted the hockey stick without any fanfare. That was at the least deceptive.What do you call a person who states that I lie about science and the actions of scientists, but has no problem with a scientist such as Michael Mann lying about the actions of fellow scientists? A hypocrite.

"What does this have to do with climate change mitigation? Not a damn thing. What does mitigation have to do with the question of warming, climate change, and human causation? Ditto." :)

The subject of this thread is calling on a political leader to act on global warming. If you can act on something, you should be able to demonstrate the effect yet no peer reviewed published experiment shows the ability to change climate, measure an increase in an atmospheric from an experimental emission or sequestration or climate change mitigation.

Climate always changes, nobody disputes that. Whether man can change global climate is an open question because that theory has never been experimentally tested.

"The DunningKruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes." -- Wikipedia I see this effect on Topix all the time......

I disagree. Your statement should be, "I see this effect on topix ALL the time!!!.......", with emphasis on the word, "ALL", as in every toxic topix AGW denier who does not have a hi skule DEE-plooomaa, specially without science & mathematics.

On August 6th, 1945, a nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima Japan. Before that, there was the Trinity test on July 16th. Before that, numerous tests called tickling the dragons tail, where different nuclear materials were tested for criticality. On December 2nd, 1942, a self sustaining nuclear reactor was operated under the Stagg Field stadium in Chicago Illinois. Before that, years of experimental tests on radioactive elements.What does this have to do with climate change mitigation? There are no experimental tests of climate change mitigation. This is where man made global warming alarmism and climate change mitigation splits from real science.

Is a reactor a bomb? Can be. Did they blow up the stadium? Did they nuke Chicago? Then they never TESTED a bomb until Alamogordo.

You really have a hard-on for experiments, don't you, but you don't have to have experiments to test a theory, as you have been told many times.

You've just latched onto that because you think it wins your argument. Unfortunately, though, you don't have an argument.

That's right, as a bomb's core is squeezed it starts a chain reaction. Before the bomb was used to win WWII, it was tested part by part.

.

gcaveman1 wrote:

Did they blow up the stadium? Did they nuke Chicago? Then they never TESTED a bomb until Alamogordo.

^^^This view differs from history:

"In relation to the fabulous atomic bomb program, of which the Chicago Pile experiment was a key part, the successful result reported on December 2nd formed one more piece for the jigsaw puzzle which was atomic energy. Confirmation of the chain reactor studies was an inspiration to the leaders of the bomb project, and reassuring at the same time, because the Army's Manhattan Engineer District had moved ahead on many fronts. Contract negotiations were under way to build production-scale chain reactors, land had been acquired at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and millions of dollars had been obligated."http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/firstpil...

.

gcaveman1 wrote:

You really have a hard-on for experiments, don't you,

Real world tests (i.e. experiments) verify or refute theory and they are essential to evaluating good technology or policies. In business, a new strategy is tested before it get's the go ahead, google glass is being tested now, so Apple will know how well it works and who might buy it. in business they call these experiments, due diligence.

Experiments allow people to see data about the effects of a man made change.

.

gcaveman1 wrote:

but you don't have to have experiments to test a theory, as you have been told many times.

Experiments are necessary to test new products, plans or procedures. You don't need experiments to test a purely observational science but once a scheme (such as climate change mitigation) is suggested, that scheme can either be tested or left in the backwaters of pseudoscience.

For instance, Creationism is similar to climate change mitigation because they both aren't tested experimentally.

.

gcaveman1 wrote:

You've just latched onto that because you think it wins your argument. Unfortunately, though, you don't have an argument.

I just bought a used car; I took it for a test drive before I decided to buy it. Don't buy a pig in a poke.

<quoted text>That's right, as a bomb's core is squeezed it starts a chain reaction. Before the bomb was used to win WWII, it was tested part by part..<quoted text>^^^This view differs from history:"In relation to the fabulous atomic bomb program, of which the Chicago Pile experiment was a key part, the successful result reported on December 2nd formed one more piece for the jigsaw puzzle which was atomic energy. Confirmation of the chain reactor studies was an inspiration to the leaders of the bomb project, and reassuring at the same time, because the Army's Manhattan Engineer District had moved ahead on many fronts. Contract negotiations were under way to build production-scale chain reactors, land had been acquired at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and millions of dollars had been obligated."http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/firstpil....<quoted text>Real world tests (i.e. experiments) verify or refute theory and they are essential to evaluating good technology or policies. In business, a new strategy is tested before it get's the go ahead, google glass is being tested now, so Apple will know how well it works and who might buy it. in business they call these experiments, due diligence.Experiments allow people to see data about the effects of a man made change..<quoted text>Experiments are necessary to test new products, plans or procedures. You don't need experiments to test a purely observational science but once a scheme (such as climate change mitigation) is suggested, that scheme can either be tested or left in the backwaters of pseudoscience.For instance, Creationism is similar to climate change mitigation because they both aren't tested experimentally..<quoted text>I just bought a used car; I took it for a test drive before I decided to buy it. Don't buy a pig in a poke.

"it was tested part by part"So the whole thing was not tested.

"one more piece for the jigsaw puzzle"Obviously they didn't have the whole picture.

"reassuring"Because they felt more confident that they were on the right track, but they still didn't KNOW.

"millions of dollars had been obligated"What? Without even one explosion?

Seems, with a tip of the hat to mememine69's meme, that they were saying "maybe", "possibly", and "probably", but they weren't 100% SURE. In fact, things were so iffy that Oppenheimer awoke in the middle of the night before Alamogordo, worried that if the experiment worked, it might set the atmosphere on fire. How's that for the predictive surety of science?

So all the indications were, before the first bomb was ever detonated, that splitting the atom had tremendous destructive power. But they had never completed an experiment; otherwise Chicago might just be a hole in the ground now.

So all the indications are, before any mitigation has ever been implemented, that slowing or reversing our CO2 output will have an effect on climate change.

Man made Global Warming is caused by scientists working for a shadow agenda with political control and people control. Geoengineering with heavy metals and nano particulates make people sick, Look up Chemtrails and aluminum contamination.

They play God with the weather, Drought here, abnormal storms there...then Government will save you....with your tax dollars.

How do you control a population?? Kissenger Knows....Rockefeller Knows....Rothschild Knows...The queen and POPE Know....

Control the money, Food, Communication, Religion, Weather and you control the People.

Guess what...They are all Done...Foreclosed and registered in commerce as DEBTORS to the People equally around the Globe. Even the Vatican and the Queen.

Now it time to grow Hemp trees that eat up your CO2 and produce far more oxygen. Bring back Hemp and the industrial uses that have been hidden from us.

Duly FORECLOSED...This sort's actions and systems, whether under the deceptive guise of government,office,treaty ,act,constitution,or entity, inclusive of the private systems formerly known as,NATION,UNITED NATIONS, and its special agencies of IMF,THE HAGUE,WORLD BANK, and BANK FOR INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS... from each family of this sort of magician, from land to land, sea to sea, to The Holy Sea, all have been lawfully, legally and duly verified as REGISTERED in COMMERCE as duly FORECLOSED... duly verified DEBTORS to the people, all the people equally on earth, on October 24, 2012, as a matter of law, matter of fact, and as a matter of public policy... unrebuttable and unrebutted.One People's Public Trust belongs to All the People on the Earth Equally

Man made Global Warming is caused by scientists working for a shadow agenda with political control and people control. Geoengineering with heavy metals and nano particulates make people sick, Look up Chemtrails and aluminum contamination.They play God with the weather, Drought here, abnormal storms there...then Government will save you....with your tax dollars.How do you control a population?? Kissenger Knows....Rockefeller Knows....Rothschild Knows...The queen and POPE Know....Control the money, Food, Communication, Religion, Weather and you control the People.Guess what...They are all Done...Foreclosed and registered in commerce as DEBTORS to the People equally around the Globe. Even the Vatican and the Queen.Now it time to grow Hemp trees that eat up your CO2 and produce far more oxygen. Bring back Hemp and the industrial uses that have been hidden from us.

<quoted text>That's right, as a bomb's core is squeezed it starts a chain reaction. Before the bomb was used to win WWII, it was tested part by part..<quoted text>^^^This view differs from history:"In relation to the fabulous atomic bomb program, of which the Chicago Pile experiment was a key part, the successful result reported on December 2nd formed one more piece for the jigsaw puzzle which was atomic energy. Confirmation of the chain reactor studies was an inspiration to the leaders of the bomb project, and reassuring at the same time, because the Army's Manhattan Engineer District had moved ahead on many fronts. Contract negotiations were under way to build production-scale chain reactors, land had been acquired at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and millions of dollars had been obligated."http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/firstpil....<quoted text>Real world tests (i.e. experiments) verify or refute theory and they are essential to evaluating good technology or policies. In business, a new strategy is tested before it get's the go ahead, google glass is being tested now, so Apple will know how well it works and who might buy it. in business they call these experiments, due diligence.Experiments allow people to see data about the effects of a man made change..<quoted text>Experiments are necessary to test new products, plans or procedures. You don't need experiments to test a purely observational science but once a scheme (such as climate change mitigation) is suggested, that scheme can either be tested or left in the backwaters of pseudoscience.For instance, Creationism is similar to climate change mitigation because they both aren't tested experimentally..<quoted text>I just bought a used car; I took it for a test drive before I decided to buy it. Don't buy a pig in a poke.

"it was tested part by part" So the whole thing was not tested. "one more piece for the jigsaw puzzle" Obviously they didn't have the whole picture. "reassuring"

Exactly, they refined elements and put them together in larger amounts, they experimentally verified the limits of criticality. Its a series of prototypes and tests; the exact opposite in the state of global warming and climate change mitigation science.

We've seen the tests of atomic energy, where are the tests of climate change mitigation? Nonscientists rave about Superstorm Sandy while others think about hurricanes and tides. There's a difference between an intentional change produced by experiment and histories or trends.

The trend at the start of WWII, we were losing and many gave their lives to end the war in victory. The bomb was good science, a series of reproducible tests. What compelling test of climate change mitigation have you seen?

.

gcaveman1 wrote:

Because they felt more confident that they were on the right track, but they still didn't KNOW. "millions of dollars had been obligated" What? Without even one explosion?

Two bombs ended the war only after millions of lives were already spent. Einstein backed it, Truman backed it and he was an Artillery officer in WWI. Once it was tested, was there any doubt it would be used?

Well spent millions, Germany and Japan had their own atomic weapon programs. This was war, there was an arms race, Germany deployed jets first, America deployed nukes first.

.

gcaveman1 wrote:

Seems, with a tip of the hat to mememine69's meme, that they were saying "maybe", "possibly", and "probably", but they weren't 100% SURE. In fact, things were so iffy that Oppenheimer awoke in the middle of the night before Alamogordo, worried that if the experiment worked, it might set the atmosphere on fire. How's that for the predictive surety of science?

The math and real experiments proved Oppenheimer's nightmare false, Trinity answered the question and saved millions of lives. Trinity was the first test of a nuclear bomb, but nuclear reactions in ever stronger and demonstrable measures were experimentally tested for years before the bomb, at great expense.

.

gcaveman1 wrote:

So all the indications were, before the first bomb was ever detonated, that splitting the atom had tremendous destructive power. But they had never completed an experiment; otherwise Chicago might just be a hole in the ground now.

The power of splitting atoms is precisely calculable thanks to experimental data. Too bad, no experimental data from climate change mitigation.

.

gcaveman1 wrote:

So all the indications are, before any mitigation has ever been implemented, that slowing or reversing our CO2 output will have an effect on climate change. You don't have an argument.

As would increasing and amplifying our CO2 output, it would all be one without demonstrable, repeatable experiments, preferably published in peer reviewed journals.

I find the first one compelling, for doing nothing. The small temperature difference produced between an atmosphere 100% CO2 and 0.0390% CO2, where CO2 has doubled more than 11 times, that's very persuasive for considering the effect of CO2 on temperature small. The effect is far smaller than the IPCC's estimate of CO2 sensitivity.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.